If you haven't heard by now there's talk that Quetin Tarantino is going to direct an "R" rated "Star Trek" movie. Personally, I don't know how to feel. For some reason the idea of a Star Trek movie with a hard "R" rating just doesn't feel right. But then again, it's QT and I'm sure he would do something interesting. The Star Trek film franchise has kind of petered out so they need a good kick in the pants. But enough about Star Trek...

This got me thinking about Ghostbusters. As some of you may or may not know, Ghostbusters was originally going to be an R rated film. I think the only non R rating that group had done up until 1984 is Meatballs(great movie btw). Besides that im pretty sure everything Ramis/Aykroyd/Reitman had written or directed was "R". I don't think a harder rating would've made Ghostbusters any better or funnier. They get away with quite a bit for a "PG" rating but the movie isn't hindered at all. However...

One GB movie I totally think couldve benefitted from an "R" rating is GB16. Besides Freaks and Geeks, Paul Feig has operated successfully only in "R" rated comedies. I think a PG-13 rating muzzled him. I think there is a very good chance an "R" rated Feig movie would've A) helped him make it his own, and B) helped the movie be funny, since R ratings are in his wheel house. All that being said...

Would we want an "R" rated Ghostbusters film? I grew up with extremely liberal parents who would allow me to watch anything I wanted(except Power Rangers..go figure). I know some of you probably weren't so lucky. So had the original film had a more adult rating, some of you may not have come to the movie as early as you did in your youth. Maybe RGB wouldn't have been a thing. Who knows. But if Jason Reitman came out tomorrow and said "Hey, GBfans, just thought I'd give you a heads up. This GB sequel is going to be Rated R. For Nudity, language and horror" how would you react? Excited? Bummed? Confused? Indifferent?

I feel like it would be a gimmick, since Ghostbusters has never been an R-rated style franchise.

That said, if it fit the story and made sense... I just want the best possible movie.

Also, that said, they're not going to make it rated R because they need the franchise to be marketable to audiences of varying ages.

This got me thinking about Ghostbusters. As some of you may or may not know, Ghostbusters was originally going to be an R rated film. I think the only non R rating that group had done up until 1984 is Meatballs(great movie btw). Besides that im pretty sure everything Ramis/Aykroyd/Reitman had written or directed was "R". I don't think a harder rating would've made Ghostbusters any better or funnier. They get away with quite a bit for a "PG" rating but the movie isn't hindered at all. However...

Do you have a source on this? Granted, I understand the logic, in that they'd all done R-rated stuff... but I don't believe Ghostbusters was ever planned to be rated R. That feels like something like that would've been pretty public knowledge 35 years later, which I don't feel like it is. I think you're making some assumptions, based on relatively sound logic, but making it as a statement, which isn't supported by anything factual.

Originally there was a storyboard with a Perverted Ghost raising a woman's skirt in a office building
and if you include the Fort Detmerring scene you could assume they were possible going for a mature audience.

I do recall Ivan Reitman stating on the 1999 Commentary that something else was supposed to be written on the door but it was decided that it would be better to do "VENKMAN BURN IN HELL",
I don't remember what he said but it had something to do with kids possible seeing the movie.

Harold Ramis was all for the movie not being for kids as Ivan was a father and started wanting to make "Kid friendly" movies.

Overall, Ghostbusters (1984) would have been a PG-13 if there was such a thing back then. As for today, with the smoking it be a straight R. So in a sense, we already have a R movie. My worry with a film that is working under a R, that they end up ruining the whole film by trying to justify the R.

Looking over Ghostbusters (2016), I doubt it had any real issues with it's PG-13 it got. Ghostbusters II which like the first film would land a R instantly thanks to two scenes of Ray smoking; but other than that, it was softened due to avoiding the PG-13, aiming for a PG. But the "Coming of age" Peter fatherhood thing, probably is the real issue with GB2 along with the negative vibes PSA.

A new film needs to know exactly what it wants to be and to develop the comedy around it. Character development also needs to be more in the forefront which is one of the big issues with the GB2016 film. They deleted the wrong scenes, throwing out Abby and Erin's friendship issues which mattered about the same as Peter being concerned about Containment unit. GB2 I honestly didn't get nearly the connection to the characters and what was the pay-off unlike GB1 and GB2016.

So I guess my answer is the rating of the film only matters if it is focused on too much. Make a good film, then edit to get the rating needed. (also, add the edited content back in for home releases. )

Overall, Ghostbusters (1984) would have been a PG-13 if there was such a thing back then. As for today, with the smoking it be a straight R. So in a sense, we already have a R movie. My worry with a film that is working under a R, that they end up ruining the whole film by trying to justify the R.

Looking over Ghostbusters (2016), I doubt it had any real issues with it's PG-13 it got. Ghostbusters II which like the first film would land a R instantly thanks to two scenes of Ray smoking; but other than that, it was softened due to avoiding the PG-13, aiming for a PG. But the "Coming of age" Peter fatherhood thing, probably is the real issue with GB2 along with the negative vibes PSA.

A new film needs to know exactly what it wants to be and to develop the comedy around it. Character development also needs to be more in the forefront which is one of the big issues with the GB2016 film. They deleted the wrong scenes, throwing out Abby and Erin's friendship issues which mattered about the same as Peter being concerned about Containment unit. GB2 I honestly didn't get nearly the connection to the characters and what was the pay-off unlike GB1 and GB2016.

So I guess my answer is the rating of the film only matters if it is focused on too much. Make a good film, then edit to get the rating needed. (also, add the edited content back in for home releases. )

Just to clarify, smoking does not equal an automatic "R" rating. Smoking is simply something that is now described in the rating reason text. I'm not sure where this rumour came from.

Disney wouldn't be able to re release any move pre 1989 if that were the case since characters often smoked in their animated films.

Now some companies, like Disney, have banned smoking from appearing in their films, even if it's time frame appropriate.

I feel like it would be a gimmick, since Ghostbusters has never been an R-rated style franchise.

That said, if it fit the story and made sense... I just want the best possible movie.

Also, that said, they're not going to make it rated R because they need the franchise to be marketable to audiences of varying ages.

This got me thinking about Ghostbusters. As some of you may or may not know, Ghostbusters was originally going to be an R rated film. I think the only non R rating that group had done up until 1984 is Meatballs(great movie btw). Besides that im pretty sure everything Ramis/Aykroyd/Reitman had written or directed was "R". I don't think a harder rating would've made Ghostbusters any better or funnier. They get away with quite a bit for a "PG" rating but the movie isn't hindered at all. However...

Do you have a source on this? Granted, I understand the logic, in that they'd all done R-rated stuff... but I don't believe Ghostbusters was ever planned to be rated R. That feels like something like that would've been pretty public knowledge 35 years later, which I don't feel like it is. I think you're making some assumptions, based on relatively sound logic, but making it as a statement, which isn't supported by anything factual.

Yeah. If I remember correctly the very first draft of the Ramis/Aykroyd script was an "R" rated script. I believe it's referenced in the audio commentary. I read a script draft where there was swearing to a higher degree. The graffiti on the door on Venkmans office said "Venkmen sucks cock in hell" or something like that.

Soo..yeah. This isn't something I've assumed. Thanks for saying that so nicely though. Maybe some better internet manners would serve you better in the future. Gezzz...

I feel like it would be a gimmick, since Ghostbusters has never been an R-rated style franchise.

That said, if it fit the story and made sense... I just want the best possible movie.

Also, that said, they're not going to make it rated R because they need the franchise to be marketable to audiences of varying ages.

It's interesting that the original film was originally planned this way, but still, like you said, I rather it stay true to the original formula of ghostbusting storytelling that made the original 1984 film so great in the first place and attract as many audiences as possible (kids and adults alike) instead of overdoing it with R-rated mature themes, 'unless' they're tasteful depending on the story.

Kylie Griffin: I was a little girl. Twelve years ago. Jack's parents came over for dinner. We were playing in my room. The Grundel came through the window and grabbed him. I tried to save him, but the Grundel swatted me away. Said he'd come back for me… someday. Nobody believed me. They thought it was a kidnapper. Jack was never found.
Roland Jackson: It's OK, Kylie.
Kylie Griffin: I blocked it from my memory. Until it came back last night.
-Extreme Ghostbusters - Grundlesque (early script)

I feel like it would be a gimmick, since Ghostbusters has never been an R-rated style franchise.

That said, if it fit the story and made sense... I just want the best possible movie.

Also, that said, they're not going to make it rated R because they need the franchise to be marketable to audiences of varying ages.

Do you have a source on this? Granted, I understand the logic, in that they'd all done R-rated stuff... but I don't believe Ghostbusters was ever planned to be rated R. That feels like something like that would've been pretty public knowledge 35 years later, which I don't feel like it is. I think you're making some assumptions, based on relatively sound logic, but making it as a statement, which isn't supported by anything factual.

Yeah. If I remember correctly the very first draft of the Ramis/Aykroyd script was an "R" rated script. I believe it's referenced in the audio commentary. I read a script draft where there was swearing to a higher degree. The graffiti on the door on Venkmans office said "Venkmen sucks cock in hell" or something like that.

Soo..yeah. This isn't something I've assumed. Thanks for saying that so nicely though. Maybe some better internet manners would serve you better in the future. Gezzz...

You really want to suggest that I wasn't saying that nicely or having manners? My God you have such thin skin. No one can ever disagree with you.

I literally said you had sound logic but that it seemed like something you were assuming based on your sound logic rather than having actual proof. Holy hell... there's not a nicer way of saying that.

I don't recall the line in the script like that, but I admittedly haven't read every single draft, so I'll take your word for it on that. To be clear, that is not a sarcastic tone. I am not being rude. I am not trying to undermine what you are saying. You articulated your point and I understand what you meant and I believe you read that somewhere.

Yeah. If I remember correctly the very first draft of the Ramis/Aykroyd script was an "R" rated script. I believe it's referenced in the audio commentary. I read a script draft where there was swearing to a higher degree. The graffiti on the door on Venkmans office said "Venkmen sucks cock in hell" or something like that.

Soo..yeah. This isn't something I've assumed. Thanks for saying that so nicely though. Maybe some better internet manners would serve you better in the future. Gezzz...

You really want to suggest that I wasn't saying that nicely or having manners? My God you have such thin skin. No one can ever disagree with you.

I literally said you had sound logic but that it seemed like something you were assuming based on your sound logic rather than having actual proof. Holy hell... there's not a nicer way of saying that.

I don't recall the line in the script like that, but I admittedly haven't read every single draft, so I'll take your word for it on that. To be clear, that is not a sarcastic tone. I am not being rude. I am not trying to undermine what you are saying. You articulated your point and I understand what you meant and I believe you read that somewhere.

Is that nice enough manners for you?

Meh. It was ok. You could've added a "Your Majesty" and a couple "Sir's" but, hey, I'm flexible.

Here's a quick snap from Making Ghostbusters. Talks about the graffiti, as well as the original intended rating. Seems to imply that they were never going for a hard R rating, but expected to get more of a soft R. Doubt it would have ever ended up being akin to a Tarantino movie, but they definitely had some more adult humour and language in mind, but, in the end, decided to annex a lot of what they deemed unnecessary. Ramis specifically stated that one of the many reasons the molester ghost scene was never filmed was because, in the end, they thought it was "adolescent and tasteless."

In the end, if getting an R rated Ghostbusters movie simply meant more stuff like the guys saying funny things, like Venkman's innuendos or other logical character behaviours and situations, I'm all for it. If it's just an excuse to drop F-bombs for no reason or just be needlessly vulgar, I'll pass. Mother Puss Bucket was both a funny thing to say because it sounded funny and because we all knew that wasn't actually what Venkman was thinking of saying. Insinuating something explicit can, in several situations, be funnier than just outright saying it. Lines like that are memorable and quotable, where, if he had just dropped an F-bomb, it would be neither of those thing.

Last edited by JTysonLambert on June 27th, 2019, 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Here's a quick snap from Making Ghostbusters. Talks about the graffiti, as well as the original intended rating. Seems to imply that they were never going for a hard R rating, but expected to get more of a soft R. Doubt it would have ever ended up being akin to a Tarantino movie, but they definitely had some more adult humour and language in mind, but, in the end, decided to annex a lot of what they deemed unnecessary. Ramis specifically stated that one of the many reasons the molester ghost seen was never filmed was because, in the end, they thought it was "adolescent and tasteless."

In the end, if getting an R rated Ghostbusters movie simply meant more stuff like the guys saying funny things, like Venkman's innuendos or other logical character behaviours and situations, I'm all for it. If it's just an excuse to drop F-bombs for no reason or just be needlessly vulgar, I'll pass. Mother Puss Bucket was both a funny thing to say because it sounded funny and because we all knew that wasn't actually what Venkman was thinking of saying. Insinuating something explicit can, in several situations, be funnier than just outright saying it. Lines like that are memorable and quotable, where, if he had just dropped an F-bomb, it would be neither of those thing.

You the man Jtyson. You the man. Thanks for the confirmation source. I knew the old memory machine still worked!

Also, I love that quote about Mother Puss Bucket.

Doctor Venkman must now and forever refer me to as "Your Majesty" for doubting me. I think it's a rule somewhere on this site(or a commandment that Moses forget about) saying "Thou shall not doubt the Supreme Being known as Richardless. Any and all whom doubt his Supremeness and awesomeness shall now and forever refer to him as "Your Majesty". Also, let it be known that Tuesday's shall be all you can eat Chicken Wings at any local bar. God out" *God Drops Mic*

Here's a quick snap from Making Ghostbusters. Talks about the graffiti, as well as the original intended rating. Seems to imply that they were never going for a hard R rating, but expected to get more of a soft R. Doubt it would have ever ended up being akin to a Tarantino movie, but they definitely had some more adult humour and language in mind, but, in the end, decided to annex a lot of what they deemed unnecessary. Ramis specifically stated that one of the many reasons the molester ghost scene was never filmed was because, in the end, they thought it was "adolescent and tasteless."

In the end, if getting an R rated Ghostbusters movie simply meant more stuff like the guys saying funny things, like Venkman's innuendos or other logical character behaviours and situations, I'm all for it. If it's just an excuse to drop F-bombs for no reason or just be needlessly vulgar, I'll pass. Mother Puss Bucket was both a funny thing to say because it sounded funny and because we all knew that wasn't actually what Venkman was thinking of saying. Insinuating something explicit can, in several situations, be funnier than just outright saying it. Lines like that are memorable and quotable, where, if he had just dropped an F-bomb, it would be neither of those thing.

Thanks for this. The more I thought about the quote I vaguely remembered reading it somewhere. I couldn't remember where, but of course... it's a book on my own shelf!

I agree w/ Doctor Venkman. No need for the F-bombs at all, but more freedom for them to say some funnier/slightly more innuendo stuff would be great. Also, I love when genres like this dial up the reality. Think of "Logan". That was, by far, the best super hero movie ever made, IMO. It just felt... real. I guess, sort of like the 1984 movie. Even though we all know it's fake, it feels real/right.

I think that as long as they use a similar formula as they did in'84, there wouldn't even need to be anything above a PG-13, really.

I thought the first two films already skirted the R-rating pretty closely. There were definitely plenty of shit-bombs and piss-bombs--a freaking blowjob--and considering the decapitated heads in GB2, I'm surprised that it wasn't rated R. All it would really take is just a little more gore, perhaps some nudity, and a good measure of F-bombs which, if you think about it, are totally appropriate for the original concept, since the GB's are supposed to be just blue collar paranormal exterminators, and working class men swear like pirates. I wouldn't want it to be forced and overdone like a Tarantino movie, but a true-to-life Ghostbusters film should absolutely be R-rated.

"Janine, didn't yo mamma ever tell you not to get involved with no Ghostbuster? Now go on home."
--- Dr. Venkman (GB1, deleted scene)

The first film was a superb combination of talents, luck, script writing, decisions and the era it was created in.

When I look at the film, it feels like it would be an R-rating. Not just for some swear words and the smoking, but most of the sexual innuendos, which probably come from the "Animal House" and such other titles. I'll admit this is a thing I miss in today's modern movies.

The era is gone, so the chances of seeing such a film as Ghostbusters is being made is even slimmer than seeing the franchise heading into the R-rated territory.

Still, it's probably something I'd love to see someday but I doubt it will ever happen since the first film has been gutted to make it "family friendly" since RGB and Ghostbusters II. :/

Overall, Ghostbusters (1984) would have been a PG-13 if there was such a thing back then. As for today, with the smoking it be a straight R. So in a sense, we already have a R movie. My worry with a film that is working under a R, that they end up ruining the whole film by trying to justify the R.

Looking over Ghostbusters (2016), I doubt it had any real issues with it's PG-13 it got. Ghostbusters II which like the first film would land a R instantly thanks to two scenes of Ray smoking; but other than that, it was softened due to avoiding the PG-13, aiming for a PG. But the "Coming of age" Peter fatherhood thing, probably is the real issue with GB2 along with the negative vibes PSA.

A new film needs to know exactly what it wants to be and to develop the comedy around it. Character development also needs to be more in the forefront which is one of the big issues with the GB2016 film. They deleted the wrong scenes, throwing out Abby and Erin's friendship issues which mattered about the same as Peter being concerned about Containment unit. GB2 I honestly didn't get nearly the connection to the characters and what was the pay-off unlike GB1 and GB2016.

So I guess my answer is the rating of the film only matters if it is focused on too much. Make a good film, then edit to get the rating needed. (also, add the edited content back in for home releases. )

Just to clarify, smoking does not equal an automatic "R" rating. Smoking is simply something that is now described in the rating reason text. I'm not sure where this rumour came from.

Disney wouldn't be able to re release any move pre 1989 if that were the case since characters often smoked in their animated films.

Now some companies, like Disney, have banned smoking from appearing in their films, even if it's time frame appropriate.

Sometimes we get things wrong. No humor was intended. I did however get fooled by propaganda pushing for smoking in films being R.
Google in the "People also ask" section:
Is smoking allowed in movies?: "Because of this, some people are sensitive about smoking being portrayed in our television shows and films. Smoking has long been a part of the big and small screen; for many years, tobacco companies paid movie studios to place their cigarettes in films. Of course, this is no longer allowed."
Google sourced: https://mphprogramslist.com/should-we-r ... in-movies/
Does smoking in a movie make it rated R?: "This Film Is Rated 'R' For Smoking. If smoking in a movie meant an R rating, it could reduce adolescent tobacco use by almost twenty percent. ... The Surgeon General has concluded that smoking in movies makes kids smoke.Jul 11, 2012"
Google sourced: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ng/259690/
That answer right there was not to the right question.

I had assumed it was already was a thing cause when is the last time a film below a R had smoking? I couldn't think of any.

Just to clarify, smoking does not equal an automatic "R" rating. Smoking is simply something that is now described in the rating reason text. I'm not sure where this rumour came from.

Disney wouldn't be able to re release any move pre 1989 if that were the case since characters often smoked in their animated films.

Now some companies, like Disney, have banned smoking from appearing in their films, even if it's time frame appropriate.

Sometimes we get things wrong. No humor was intended. I did however get fooled by propaganda pushing for smoking in films being R.
Google in the "People also ask" section:
Is smoking allowed in movies?: "Because of this, some people are sensitive about smoking being portrayed in our television shows and films. Smoking has long been a part of the big and small screen; for many years, tobacco companies paid movie studios to place their cigarettes in films. Of course, this is no longer allowed."
Google sourced: https://mphprogramslist.com/should-we-r ... in-movies/
Does smoking in a movie make it rated R?: "This Film Is Rated 'R' For Smoking. If smoking in a movie meant an R rating, it could reduce adolescent tobacco use by almost twenty percent. ... The Surgeon General has concluded that smoking in movies makes kids smoke.Jul 11, 2012"
Google sourced: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ng/259690/
That answer right there was not to the right question.

I had assumed it was already was a thing cause when is the last time a film below a R had smoking? I couldn't think of any.

Ghostbusters 2 was a very mild PG, and while the heads on a stick were a little spooky, almost nothing in GB2 is intense enough for an R rating.

I also don't care for the more toned down and kid friendly aspects, it's best as more adult fare.

While I don't imagine an R rated Ghostbusters movie would bug me, I can't think of a scenario it would make it any better.

"Ok. opening at number 2, to sub 50 million, next to the 2nd weekend of an animated kids movie, is NEGATIVE. Let me just clear that up right now. There is no middle ground on this. Studios DO NOT spend 100 million in marketing money to open at number 2. No sir. No. No. No. No." - Richardless

If it adds to the story then yes, if not then I don't see why adding more f-bombs and graphic gore would add anything. It was scarier in the original not knowing what happened to Dana behind the kitchen door.